By Aaron Karp

Uncertainty about any firearms data requires systematic estimation that relies on a broad spectrum of sources and makes approximation unavoidable. The Small Arms Survey’s estimates of civilian firearms holdings use data gathered from multiple sources. However, with much of civilian ownership concealed or hard to identify, gun ownership numbers can only approximate reality. Using data from several different sources, at the end of 2017 there were approximately 857 million civilian-held firearms in the world’s 230 countries and territories. Civilian firearms registration data was available for 133 countries and territories. Survey results were used to help establish total gun civilian holdings in 56 countries. The new figure is 32 per cent higher than the previous estimate from 2006, when the Small Arms Survey estimated there were approximately 650 million civilian-held firearms. Virtually all countries show higher numbers, although national ownership rates vary widely, reflecting factors such as national legislation, a country’s gun culture, historical and other factors. While some of the increase reflects improved data and research methods, much is due to actual growth of civilian ownership.

Geneva: Small Arms Survey, 2018. 12p.

By John J. Donohue, Abhay Aneja and Kyle D. Weber

This paper uses more complete state panel data (through 2014) and new statistical techniques to estimate the impact on violent crime when states adopt right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws. Our preferred panel data regression specification, unlike the statistical model of Lott and Mustard that had previously been offered as evidence of crime-reducing RTC laws, both satisfies the parallel trends assumption and generates statistically significant estimates showing RTC laws increase overall violent crime. Our synthetic control approach also strongly confirms that RTC laws are associated with 13-15 percent higher aggregate violent crime rates ten years after adoption. Using a consensus estimate of the elasticity of crime with respect to incarceration of 0.15, the average RTC state would need to roughly double its prison population to offset the increase in violent crime caused by RTC adoption.

Cambridge, MA; National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018. 126p.

By Philip J. Cook, Harold A. Pollack and Kailey White

Chicago became infamous for high rates of gun violence during the Tommy Gun era of the Roaring ‘20s. While Tommy Guns are rare these days, Chicago continues to have relatively high rates of lethal violence, almost all involving guns. Homicide rates in Chicago hit a post-War peak during the Crack epidemic circa 1992, and declined thereafter. But other cities, most notably New York and Los Angeles, experienced far greater reductions in violence, as did the nation as a whole. Then in 2016, Chicago experienced a spike in gun violence, with the homicide rate increasing year over year by 58% (University of Chicago Crime Lab, 2017). Reducing gun violence, already a priority for city leaders, has become still more urgent. There was also a nationwide surge in gun violence between 2014 and 2016, raising the question of whether the long downward trend in violence has reversed. What can be done? There are two basic law enforcement strategies for reducing gun violence. The first is through police and court efforts, both reactive and proactive, to deter gun misuse directly. Those efforts entail improved investigation capacity to increase the arrest and conviction rates for gun assault, but also proactive tactics to discourage illicit gun carrying. The second strategy is targeted on illicit gun transactions that arm people who might harm others. The goal is to make guns scarcer to anyone legally disqualified from buying them, including youth and people with prior felony convictions. Crafting an effective supply-side strategy requires a good understanding of how people who might harm others currently procure their guns. Providing that baseline information is the motivation for this project.

Chicago: University of Chicago Crime Lab, 2018. 152p.

By Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig

The National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms took place during November and December 1994 to gather information on the size, composition, and ownership of the gun stock in the United States; how and why guns are acquired; gun storage and carrying; and the defensive use of firearms against criminal attackers.

This national telephone survey used a list-assisted random-digit-dialing sampling method and produced a response rate of 44 percent or 59 percent, depending on the definition used. Results revealed that an estimated 192 working firearms are in private possession; about one-third of these are handguns. At least 40 percent of all handguns are semi-automatics. Only about 1 in 6 handguns have barrel lengths shorter than 3 inches. About one-fourth of adults personally own a firearm; this finding includes 42 percent of men and 9 percent of women. Gun ownership may be less popular among younger adults than among those ages 51 or older. Gun ownership is also most prevalent among middle-aged, middle-class white people from rural areas. Adults who have been arrested for a non-traffic offense are more likely to own a firearm than are other adults. In addition, about 10 percent of the adults own about 77 percent of the total stock of firearms. Overall, 46 percent of gun owners own some kind of gun primarily for protection against crime. Almost all owners report receiving some kind of instruction in the use of their firearms. About one in five of all gun-owning households keep a loaded and unlocked gun in the home. About one in six handguns are kept on the owner's person or in a motor vehicle. Estimates of defensive use of guns are similar to those of Kleck and Gertz, but survey-based estimates appear to be grossly in error for several reasons.

Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1996. 112p.

By Abhay Aneja, John J. Donohue III and Alexandria Zhang

For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public – so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2004, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2000. 15 of the 16 academic members of the NRC panel essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. One member of the panel thought the NRC's panel data regressions showed that RTC laws decreased murder, but the other 15 responded by saying that “the scientific evidence does not support” that position.

We evaluate the NRC evidence, and improve and expand on the report’s county data analysis by analyzing an additional six years of county data as well as state panel data for the period 1979-2010. We also present evidence using both a more plausible version of the Lott and Mustard specification, as well as our own preferred specification (which, unlike the Lott and Mustard model presented in the NRC report, does control for rates of incarceration and police).

• More.....

  While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC’s majority view about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models and re-affirm its finding that the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support, we disagree with the NRC report’s judgment on one methodological point: the NRC report states that cluster adjustments to correct for serial correlation are not needed in these panel data regressions, but our randomization tests show that without such adjustments the Type 1 error soars to 22 - 73 percent.

  Our paper highlights some important questions to consider when using panel data methods to resolve questions of law and policy effectiveness. We buttress the NRC’s cautious conclusion regarding the effects of RTC laws by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications (especially the Lott-Mustard inclusion of 36 highly collinear demographic variables), and the decision to control for state trends.

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. 109p.

by Mary Allen, Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics

In 2020, consistent with historical trends, violent Criminal Code offences accounted for about one in every five crimes that came to the attention of police. Firearm-related violent crime typically represents less than 3% of police-reported violent crime in Canada; nevertheless, it has a significant emotional and physical impact on victims, families and communities. Additionally, rates of firearm-related violence have seen a general increase over the past several years.

Concern about gun crime is long standing and a variety of approaches have been used to address it, including changes in legislation (see Text box 1). In April 2020, 22 people were killed in a mass shooting in Nova Scotia, the deadliest mass shooting in Canada in recent years. In particular, the Nova Scotia shooting led to a ban on assault-style firearms and renewed discussions around gun control and access to illegal weapons.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns

This report provides a comprehensive review of Stand Your Ground laws and how they have affected public safety and the criminal justice system. It explains how Stand Your Ground statutes have dramatically expanded the circumstances under which people are permitted to use deadly force and have created legal hurdles that make it more difficult for law enforcement to hold shooters accountable. The report also shows that Stand Your Ground states have on average experienced a 53% increase in homicides deemed justifiable in the years following passage of the law, compared with a 5% decrease in states without Stand Your Ground statutes during the same period — an increase disproportionately borne by the black community. Finally, the report provides a state-by-state analysis of each of the 22 state Stand Your Ground laws.

New York: National Urban League, 2013. 28p.

By Scott R. Kegler; Deborah M. Stone; James A. Mercy and Linda L. Dahlberg

Firearm homicides and suicides represent an ongoing public health concern in the United States. During 2018–2019, a total of 28,372 firearm homicides (including 3,612 [13%] among youths and young adults aged 10–19 years [youths]) and 48,372 firearm suicides (including 2,463 [5%] among youths) occurred among U.S. residents (1). This report is the fourth in a series* that provides statistics on firearm homicides and suicides in major metropolitan areas. As with earlier reports, this report provides a special focus on youth violence, including suicide, recognizing the magnitude of the problem and the importance of early prevention efforts. Firearm homicide and suicide rates were calculated for the 50 most populous U.S. metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)† for the periods 2015–2016 and 2018–2019, separated by a transition year (2017), using mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Following a period of decreased firearm homicide rates among persons of all ages after 2006–2007 in large metropolitan areas collectively and nationally, by 2015–2016 rates had returned to levels comparable to those observed a decade earlier and remained nearly unchanged as of 2018–2019. Firearm suicide rates among persons aged ≥10 years have continued to increase in large MSAs collectively as well as nationally. Although the youth firearm suicide rate remained much lower than the overall rate, the youth rate nationally also continued to increase, most notably outside of large MSAs. The findings in this report underscore a continued and urgent need for a comprehensive approach to prevention. This includes efforts to prevent firearm homicide and suicide in the first place and support individual persons and communities at increased risk, as well as lessening harms after firearm homicide and suicide have occurred.

Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control, 2022. 7p.

By Everytown for Gun Safety

Analysis from 750 cities of data available for the first times reveals that:

The rate of people who died by gun suicide in cities increased 11 percent over the past decade, and now make up an average of over four in 10 city gun deaths.

Cities in states with the strongest gun violence prevention laws have about half the rate of people who die by gun suicide as those in states with the weakest laws, demonstrating the importance of legislative action in preventing gun violence in cities.

Cities with the most gun shops experience nearly four times higher rates of people who die by gun suicide than those with the fewest gun shops, signaling the importance of expanding cities’ focus beyond illegal guns.

Smaller cities and those with fewer walkable neighborhoods (i.e., distance to local resources) experience higher rates of people who die by gun suicide, underscoring the importance of adequate access to resources and networks of social support that reduce risk factors like social isolation.

Cities with the most parks have about half the rate of people who die by gun suicide as those with the least, suggesting that cleaning and greening efforts may offer benefits in reducing both gun homicides and suicides.

New York: Everytown for Gun Safety, 2022. 25p.

By The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions; Art Davies, et al.

Two leading organizations dedicated to gun violence prevention—the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence—have merged to form a new center at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions combines the expertise of highly respected gun violence researchers with the skills of deeply experienced gun violence prevention advocates. We use a public health approach to conduct rigorous scientific research to identify a range of innovative solutions to gun violence. Because gun violence disproportionately impacts communities of color, we ground our work in equity and seek insights from those most impacted on appropriate solutions. Using the best available science, our Center works toward expanding evidence-based advocacy and policy-making efforts. This combination of expertise creates a unique opportunity to turn public health research into action that reduces deaths and injuries from gun violence.

Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. 2022. 40p.

By Nicholas Simons, Jaclyn Schildkraut and Julianna Caruso. Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium

On April 11, 2022, the Biden administration announced the submission of new rules issued by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), more specifically the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), addressing the proliferation of ghost guns across the nation….

What exactly are ghost guns, and what challenges do they pose? Moreover, what do these new rules do to contribute to a solution to such challenges? Privately made firearms (PMFs), which have become informally known as “ghost guns” due to their virtually untraceable nature, function similar to firearms wholly constructed by licensed firearm manufacturers but have a fraction of the regulations. In 2021, law enforcement in New York State recovered 637 PMFs (135 percent more than the year prior), reflecting continued annual increases from 44 in 2018 (the first year of reporting), 100 in 2019 (up 117 percent over the year prior), and 2020 (an increase of 171 percent). Other law enforcement agencies across the country, particularly those located in larger cities, have reported similar jumps in recoveries: Law enforcement in Boston has seen a nearly three-fold increase in the city since 2019; Philadelphia reported a five-fold increase since that year. Data from the ATF mirrors these trends: the recorded number of suspected PMF recoveries nationally increased more than 90 percent between 2020 and 2021 and more than ten-fold between 2016 and 2021. Such increases, however, must be interpreted with caution as they may be an artifact of increased reporting by jurisdictions.

While these increases represent a relatively low percentage of total gun recoveries, they illustrate that ghost guns pose a unique and rapidly growing challenge. Law enforcement agencies are unable to trace the origins of ghost guns used in crime and ultimately curb their flow at the source. While the federal government has taken first steps to regulate these weapons, state and local lawmakers have for several years been exploring and enacting policies designed to monitor and prevent ghost guns from falling into the hands of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.

Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2022. 20p.

By Chelsea Parsons and Rukmani Bhatia

The physical damage inflicted by any particular gunshot is the result of a combination of the firearm used and the ammunition fired. Sometimes, bullets travel through a body like a knife, propelled on a linear path, slicing through tissue and organs. In other cases, the bullet’s path is less predictable. It fragments in the body, ripping apart tissue and blood vessels, smashing bone, and shredding organs along its path. The human cost of America’s gun violence epidemic is visible not just in the overwhelming number of firearm fatalities but also in the radically altered lives of shooting survivors. The devastation of a bullet wound to a human body is often irreparable: Spinal injury leaves survivors paralyzed; blood loss and infections can require amputations; intestinal perforations often result in survivors needing colostomy bags to replace their damaged gastrointestinal tracks. Many gunshot survivors are plagued with a lifetime of chronic pain and suffer premature death from ongoing complications. The current national debate about gun violence is largely focused on firearms: Who should have them? What types of firearms should people be allowed to have? Where and how can they be carried? How should they be sold? Certainly, these are all crucial questions that demand a sustained and serious analysis by policymakers at all levels of government. But often missing from the conversation about firearms are questions related to ammunition—namely, the role of easy access to ammunition and ammunition accessories in the epidemic of gun violence in the United States.

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2019. 37p.

By Chelsea Parsons, Eugenio Weigend Vargas and Rukmani Bhatia

The national conversation about gun violence in the United States focuses primarily on the harms caused by the misuse of firearms—the details of the incidents that take the lives of 40,000 people every year and grievously injure tens of thousands more. This debate often occurs in the aftermath of specific gun-related tragedies and tends to focus on the individual who pulled the trigger and what could have been done to intervene with that person to prevent the tragedy. But largely absent from the national conversation about gun violence is any mention of the industry responsible for putting guns into our communities in the first place. The gun industry in the United States is effectively unregulated. The laws governing the operation of these businesses are porous and weak. The federal agency charged with oversight of the industry—the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)—has been historically underfunded and politically vulnerable, making it nearly impossible for the agency to conduct consistent, effective regulatory oversight activities. Adding insult to injury, Congress has also imposed restrictions on how ATF can perform this regulatory work through restrictive policy riders on the agency’s budget. Congress has also eliminated some of the most useful tools for ensuring that gun industry actors operate their businesses in the best interests of consumers and are held accountable for harm caused by their products. The result of this constellation of weak laws, lack of resources, and dearth of political will to support gun industry regulation is that the industry that produces and sells deadly weapons to civilian consumers has operated for decades with minimal oversight from the federal government and almost no accountability in the U.S. legal system. This is not an idle concern. The United States experiences rates of gun violence that no other high-income nation comes even close to matching. This violence persists, even as the number of Americans who choose to own guns has steadily declined.

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2020. 68p.

By Marissa Edmund

Gun violence in the United States is a public health crisis. Every day, more than 100 people are killed with a firearm, more than 200 are non-fatally injured, and more than 1,000 are threatened with a gun. There are many forms of gun violence, each affecting communities differently, and women in particular are uniquely affected. More than 11,000 women in the United States were killed with a gun between 2015 and 2019, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While men suffer even higher rates of gun violence, women are often targeted for violence because of their sex and are frequently victims of people they know well. Every month, an average of 57 women are killed with a firearm by an intimate partner. The impact of gun violence against women goes beyond fatal encounters. A 2016 study found that nearly 1 million women alive at that time had been shot by an intimate partner, and 4.5 million women had been threatened with a firearm. Firearms have long been used as a tool of power and control to instill fear and inflict abuse on women—with women of color, people in the LGBTQ community, and women with disabilities being disproportionately affected. In 2019, the Center for American Progress released “Transforming the Culture of Power: An Examination of Gender-Based Violence in the United States,” a report that focuses on the different forms gender-based violence can take across various settings and experiences as well as the policy and legislative reforms needed to address it. In this report, the author expands on one aspect discussed in that analysis: gender-based gun violence

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2022. 19p.

By Eugenio Weigend Vargas, Lynna Kaucheck and Allison Jordan

Michigan has taken important steps in passing laws that prevent guns from falling into the hands of individuals who pose a risk to themselves or others. According to the latest scorecard from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Michigan received a “C” grade for the strength of its gun laws in 2020. The state requires individuals to have a permit before they can purchase a handgun from a private seller, a form of law that a growing body of research suggests is effective at reducing gun homicides. The state also requires private gun owners to report missing or stolen firearms. These actions have worked: Compared with other states, Michigan ranked 31st in terms of gun deaths per every 100,000 people from 2015 to 2019. More recently, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) announced a $75 million plan that includes targeting gun trafficking; supporting programs to increase access to social as well as mental health services; and expanding jobs, education, and employment opportunities in communities affected by violence. After the terrible shooting at Oxford High School in November 2020, Gov. Whitmer correctly called gun violence a public health crisis and pledged to do even more to address it. Despite important progress, however, many gun reform bills in Michigan have been met with opposition, particularly from Republicans in the state legislature. As a result, gun violence remains a key issue that affects communities across the Great Lakes State. Every day, more than three people are killed with a gun and more than nine people are non-fatally injured. In this regard, all state leaders should support additional steps to prevent gun violence. This report presents six aspects of gun violence in Michigan that are particularly alarming or above the national average and that support the need for actions and policies to further reduce and prevent gun violence.

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2022. 25p.

By Marissa Edmund, Alex Barrio and Nicole Golden

According to Rand Corp., an average of 46 percent of Texas residents owned a firearm from 1980 to 2016. However, this percentage likely increased after 2020, when the country saw a surge in gun sales associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, estimates suggest that 32 percent of U.S. adults owned a firearm by the end of 2020. Texas is also home to numerous federal firearm licensed (FFL) dealers. Information from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) indicates that as of January 2022, the state had almost 10 percent—5,089—of all FFL dealers in the country. Studies also report that thousands of gun shows are organized in Texas every year. Making a bad situation worse, Texas has relatively weak gun laws when compared with other states. As a matter of fact, the state received an “F” grade for the strength of its gun laws, according to the latest scorecard from the Giffords Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence. Texas does not require a gun owner or purchaser to obtain a license or require a background check for private gun sales that take place at gun shows or online. Furthermore, Texas does not ban or regulate assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. The state has not adopted extreme risk protection laws that allow family members or law enforcement to petition the court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual experiencing crises; does not provide funding for community-based violence intervention programs; and has not adopted measures to protect women against gun violence from domestic abusers. For example, Texas law does not prohibit people convicted of domestic violence crimes against a current or former dating partner from possessing a firearm, which is the case in 29 states. Texas law also does not require firearms or ammunition to be removed from the home after a domestic violence situation.

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2022. 20p.

By Rukmani Bhatia

The National Rifle Association (NRA), an organization originally established in 1871 to train hunters and marksmen on gun use and safety, has transformed into one of the most effective political lobbies in modern American history. The group advocates for gun rights, resisting any encroachment on what it deems to be an inalienable right to unhindered, unregulated gun ownership. To advance its mission, the NRA deploys a disinformation campaign reliant on fear-mongering and the systematic discreditation of opposition voices in order to secure its position as a powerful lobbyist for the gun industry. The NRA has masterfully constructed a narrative based on gun rights propaganda, evoking images of a society devoid of rule of law and under constant threat of attack from an unidentified but ever-present enemy. Due to the insidious nature of this messaging approach, the NRA has successfully embedded its false narrative throughout much of the country. By deploying a carefully crafted campaign of misinformation, deception, and confusion, the NRA has both undermined legitimate arguments for common-sense gun law reform and made it substantially more difficult for its emotive, provocative propaganda to be countered with fact and reason. In this way, the NRA’s tactics are deceitful not only because they falsely allege to protect American freedoms but also because they mirror fundamentally un-American sources. The propaganda machine of the NRA is similar to that of authoritarian and undemocratic political regimes around the world that deploy disinformation campaigns to secure control over public discourse in their nations, enabling autocrats to maintain a vice grip over information and ensure their power is unchecked and unquestioned.

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2019. 40p.

By Elizabeth S. Haile

As ATF developed its database of more than two million crime guns, it released to law enforcement agencies, scholars, the press, local and state governments, and the public, numerous reports analyzing the patterns of crime gun sales, as well as portions of the trace database itself. Reports on crime gun trace data revolutionized our understanding of the illegal gun market and how it is supplied – establishing that strong gun laws have a profound impact on access to guns by criminals in the illegal market, and identifying the gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers most responsible for supplying crime guns. Crime gun trace data has provided powerful evidence of the gun industry’s complicity in fueling the illegal market, showing that thousands of guns move quickly from a relatively small number of licensed gun dealers into the illegal market. Indeed, almost 60% of the crime guns traced in a given year were sold by only 1% of the licensed firearms dealers, while about 85% of gun dealers had no traces at all. The gun industry knows who the high-trace dealers are, but has refused to stop selling them guns or force them to reform. As a result, felons and other prohibited purchasers have been supplied the tools of violence – aided and abetted by careless or corrupt dealers. Our nation suffers from the violent gun crime that ensues. The gun industry has argued that ATF trace data is meaningless or insignificant. For example, gun industry spokespeople continuously claim that the concentration of crime guns originating from a relatively few dealers may indicate only that they sell a lot of guns. ATF’s own investigations have disproved this argument, however, as have academic studies.

Washington, DC: Brady Center for Prevent Gun Violence, 2006. 56p.

By Garen Wintemute

Firearm-related criminal violence remains an important threat to the nation’s health and safety. To help prevent firearm violence, federal statute prohibits felons, those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, and certain others from acquiring or possessing firearms. Persons who acquire firearms from licensed gun dealers and pawnbrokers must provide identification and undergo a background check to verify that they are not prohibited persons. A permanent record is kept, in case the firearm is later used in a crime. But perhaps 40% of all firearm acquisitions, and at least 80% of those made with criminal intent, are made from private parties. No identification need be shown; no background check is conducted; no record is kept. Identifying prohibited persons through background checks and denying their firearm acquisitions has been shown to reduce their risk of committing new firearm-related or violent crimes by approximately 25%. Policies that require all firearm transfers to be routed through licensed retailers, so that background checks are completed and records are kept, are in effect in six states. Their feasibility is proved. At gun shows in states where such policies are in effect, direct private-party firearm transfers rarely occur. Comprehensive background check policies have been shown to disrupt firearm trafficking and to yield more accurate, up-to-date firearm tracing information for law enforcement. The impact of state-level policies, however, is blunted by firearm trafficking from states where such policies are not in effect.

Davis, CA: Violence Prevention Research Program, University of California, Davis. 2013. 58p.

By Philip J. Cook, and Jens Ludwig

The evidence base for the study of guns and violence begins with data on such fundamental issues as the number and distribution of guns, the number of people shot each year in criminal assaults, and the frequency of gun use in self-defense. It seems that these simple descriptive statistics should be readily available, and in fact the rhetoric of the debate over gun control in the United States routinely includes reference to 300 million guns, or 100,000 people who are shot each year, or 2.5 million defensive gun uses. But it turns out that such statistics should be viewed with considerable skepticism. Developing reliable estimates of basic facts in this arena is surprisingly difficult, even with the best of intentions. Even surveys that meet the highest standards of current practice may produce heavily biased estimates. The results discussed here should encourage skepticism and engender what might be called “plausibility tests” – common-sense comparisons of the resulting estimates with other sources of information. Too often the review of scientific contributions is like appellate review of a criminal conviction – the court focuses on just the process rather than the outcome. For policy-relevant work it is important to test the conclusions against what else we know about the reality of the situation.

San Diego: Small Arms Data Observatory, 2014. 14p.